Spanish science transitioned from being a provincial swamp of ignorant nepotism under Franco’s fascist dictatorship to an elitist swamp of arrogant nepotism with a choke-hold on European and international research funds. Young researchers, who once returned from abroad to reform the country’s bogged-down scientific system, have grown into the provincial greedy power-clutching tyrants they have dethroned. Faculty jobs once given to family members, now go to loyal members of your scientific family. Another difference: the new science oligarchs are international and speak more languages than just the local Spanish dialect. Some are even foreigners, like the Italians Maria Pia Cosma, or the central character of this story,Andrea Cerutti. One bizarre relic which remained: the fundamentalist Catholic order Opus Dei still seems to have its hand in Spanish academia, as the recent affair around Carlos Lopez-Otin revealed (see this article and especially the comment section). In the 1980ies, one Spanish medical fraudster saved his career by joining Opus Dei, he even underwent exorcism to expel the devil which made him commit research misconduct. Who knows if this still happens.

Many countries have a problem with cheaters in science, but in Spain those cheaters are celebrated, awarded with highest honours and biggest public and industrial grants. Spanish media seems to know its place and applauds each award to a dishonest data manipulator as if nothing was out of order. Lopez-Otin is back from his Paris exile to the University of Oviedo now, he wrote a book about his Passion, and he will very likely soon get the Princess of Asturias Prize he craves so much.

The whole conspiracy farce around his 9 retractions, which culminated with an El Pais article showing Lopez-Otin with a 23-year-old progeria patient sitting on his lap wearing an Opus Dei crucifix, made one thing clear: any Spanish scientist opening their mouth about research integrity will be burnt at stake. Cancer and degenerative diseases are to be cured with massive investments into aggressive Photoshop fraud, Spanish elites of society have agreed.

Maria Pia Cosma, whose papers were spared any proper investigations because her former mentor and coauthor Kim Nasmyth is just too important, also received a €500k La Caixa grant last year. EU Commission trusts her research so much, it gave Cosma in 2016 €1 million, a quarter of the budget of the Horizon 2020 CellViewer project.

Recently, certain French and Spanish newspapers established that I am a German racist, a terrorist, and a harasser of women in science, further facts in that regard were extensively elaborated on Twitter.

What about his fondness to persecute and acuse women? Is it me or there is a definite bias there? Someone please look at the numbers…

In this regard, I will bring here a story about an Italian haematology and immunology researcher, Andrea Cerutti*, who holds transatlantic labs at Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM) in Barcelona, Spain, and at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA. Until recently, Cerutti used to swim in grant money, from 2011 to 2016 the Mount Sinai lab received from NIH $5 million for 4 projects, while the Barcelona lab frolicked from 2012 to 2017 in the €2.2 million ERC grant.

It is strange why same old blot from 2013 was rearranged so creatively in 2017, with same bands standing in for such diverse samples. Some might say, it was merely a loading control, but I personally feel those are kind of important and should not be faked. But again, others on Twitter proved me wrong, especially in this case.

“In the version of the article originally published, in the top immunoblot (loading control) in Figure 5f, the right half was incorrectly a mirror-image duplication of the left half. The correct immunoblot from a replicate experiment is now presented (along with the corresponding bottom immunoblot).”

How can that kind of mirroring happen by mistake? It can’t, but do you think the publisher Nature used the occasion to screen the paper for other Easter eggs? Apparently not, but others did and posted it on PubPeer, the problem with Figure 2b already in October 2016:

Did Nature Immunology do anything about this new evidence of manipulated gels? No, the case was apparently closed. Maybe the journal was so shocked by what Cerutti is capable of, they decided not to mess with that immunologist from Photoshop hell. Because Cerutti also published this: He et al, Nature Immunology 2010:

One interesting collaborator of Cerutti’s is the fellow immunologist Paolo Casali, a compatriot from Italy and Cerutti’s former mentor from their common time back at Weill Medical College of Cornell University. Cerutti used to work in Casali’s lab from 1997 till 2003 when the latter left Weill Cornell for California, and then for the University of Texas in San Antonio, USA, where Casali is now Chair of Department of Microbiology. Cerutti stayed at Weill Cornell till 2009, the year when, according to this CV, the Italian blot fabricator was granted tenure. For some reason, Cerutti instead buggered off to Mount Sinai in New York. During that period, Cerutti and Casali polluted scientific literature with some highly toxic material. For example, they honoured Nature Immunology with this interesting collage in Cerutti et al 2001:

Not just that the pair of IgBeta bands are duplicated, one band makes an extra appearance in the gel below. It was obviously copy-pasted, just like its neighbours. The Italian couple published together also such Photoshop masterpieces like Zan et al J Immunology 2000 or Cerutti et al J Immunology 2002:

The following shows apparently how Cerutti and Casali started, back in 1998 there was not much Photoshop yet, you had to play glue, scissors, paper to get the right scientific result. A vintage artwork, from the olden times, Zan et al J Immunology 1998:

It is not like Cerutti stopped doing those naughty deeds once a successful academic career was fully established. It’s like with alcoholics, the temptation for recidivism is too strong and lurking everywhere. There are also these collaborative papers by Cerutti where same flow cytometry file appears twice. Examples are here, a paper from Cerutti’s collaborators at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden (Gutzeit et al J Immunology 2014) and at Icahn School of Medicine (Garcia-Carmona et al Frontiers in Immunology 2018). Duplicated flow cytometry (FACS) plots are labelled with colour squares.

This might have been an honest mistake of oversight, but how come the quantified numbers are different? This means either the authors did it to obscure similarities, or they secretly changed measurement gates on each file to get the results they wanted (like Sonia Melo proudly admitted to having done). Neither constitutes good scientific practice. Cerutti actually published something similar with Casali before, guess where: Xu et al J Immunology 2008.

There is more material on PubPeer, but in Spain, its serves as a badge of honour, if anything.

*Andrea is a male name in Italy, but I don’t want to spoil the “harasser of women in STEM” story told about me online and offline. Also, I don’t want to miss the precious irony of Andrea Cerutti being possibly defended as a MeToo victim of harassment.

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!

2019 Editor’s Note.https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/79/16/4305
The editors were made aware of concerns by a reader regarding potential manipulation of data in this article (1). An internal review by the editors determined that lanes 2–4 of the β-actin Western blot image in Fig. 2C (MC26 cells) were rotated and duplicated in lanes 2–4 of the β-actin Western blot image in Fig. 2D. The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to these concerns.

The editors were made aware of concerns by a reader regarding potential manipulation of data in this article (1). An internal review by the editors determined that the same β-actin Western blot image was used in Fig. 4A of this article and in Fig. 2C of an article published earlier by the authors (2), yet the cell types are different. The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to these concerns.

To be fair to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA, most of the problematic Andrea Cerutti papers come from his time at the Weill Cornell Medical School,
which is 40 blocks, about 2 miles (3 km) down the road.

The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to concerns about this article (1). In Fig. 2B, the β-actin bands have similar features and it appears that lanes have been electronically spliced together. In Fig. 4C, the β-actin bands appear similar. In Fig. 5H, the β-actin bands for “SA CM,” “SA CM + Control siRNA,” and “SA CM + COX-2 siRNA” appear similar. In response to a query by the editors, the corresponding author, Andrew Dannenberg, stated that the original data were no longer available.

It is highly likely that some senior authors will claim that they were victoms of young weasels. The problem with that argument is that there was a ruling in Ohio in November 2018 thanks to the pugnaciousness of Carlo Croce. You have to kiss dear old Carlo on both cheeks for that.

“Defendants include in this tally of “Dr. Croce’s papers” manuscripts reporting research that (a) did not take place in Dr. Croce’s lab or under his supervision, (b) do not contain any figures prepared by Dr. Croce or anyone under his supervision, (c) were not written by Dr. Croce or anyone under his supervision, and (d) for which he is identified only as a middle author….

Defendants falsely stated that papers on which Dr. Croce was only a middle author were “Dr. Croce’s papers.”

In his 35-page opinion, Graham does not buy that argument:

Dr. Croce contends that not all papers on which his name is listed were the product of research either conducted by him or under his supervision. But the Court believes that an ordinary reader would credit such a paper, on which Dr. Croce willingly allowed his name to appear as a co-author, to him.”

The ruling in Ohio applies in New York State. The Behemoths of the the Corporate State, made fat by the public dole, Weill Cornell Medical College and the Icahn Medcial School at Mount Sinai, should be mindful of that ruling before trundling out their lawyers to defend the “reputations” of their faculty. How have these fat Behemoths failed to notice the problematic data? What do their research intergity officers, and their deans of reasearch actually do? Let these Behemoths be outraged by the true cause of the outrage, not by people pointing it out. Time they went on a diet.

“Dr. Croce contends that not all papers on which his name is listed were the product of research either conducted by him or under his supervision. But the Court believes that an ordinary reader would credit such a paper, on which Dr. Croce willingly allowed his name to appear as a co-author, to him.”

“The team of Weill Cornell Medicine basic and clinical investigators includes: Drs. Jihye Paik, Giorgio Inghirami, Maurizio Di Liberto and Xiangao Huang in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; Drs. Lewis Cantley, Peter Martin, John Leonard and Jia Ruan in the Weill Department of Medicine; Dr. Lorenzo Galluzzi in the Department of Radiation Oncology; Drs. Olivier Elemento and Christopher Mason in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics; and Drs. Karla Ballman and Zhengming Chen in the Department of Healthcare Policy and Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, all whom are members of the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center.”

“One of the co-authors on the latest retraction is Lewis C. Cantley, a cancer biologist based at Weill Cornell Medical College. Cantley is credited with the discovery of a signaling pathway essential for the growth and survival of normal and cancerous cells, research which won him the coveted $3 million inaugural Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences in 2013.”

“Dr. Croce contends that not all papers on which his name is listed were the product of research either conducted by him or under his supervision. But the Court believes that an ordinary reader would credit such a paper, on which Dr. Croce willingly allowed his name to appear as a co-author, to him.”

““Currently we have a number of approved drugs and experimental therapies for MCL, yet we don’t precisely know how they work or why patients ultimately become resistant to them,” said principal investigator Dr. Selina Chen-Kiang…”

““Currently we have a number of approved drugs and experimental therapies for MCL, yet we don’t precisely know how they work or why patients ultimately become resistant to them,” said principal investigator Dr. Selina Chen-Kiang…”

““Currently we have a number of approved drugs and experimental therapies for MCL, yet we don’t precisely know how they work or why patients ultimately become resistant to them,” said principal investigator Dr. Selina Chen-Kiang…”

In the original version of this article (1), the actin signal for Pt 8 Ib1 in Fig. 3A was an accidental duplication of the actin signal for Pt 6 r_Ib in the adjacent lane. This figure has now been amended with the correct actin signal for Pt 8 Ib1. The corresponding actin loading control for BTK-pY223 blot (derived from a different gel than the other Western blots in Fig. 3A) is now also included. Dotted lines to indicate joining of lanes that were not continuous in the original Western blots have been added to Fig. 3A and C. The same actin signal for r_IbBM is intentionally presented in Figs. 3C and 4B because the same blot was used in the assembly of each panel. The figures and figure legends have been corrected in the latest online HTML and PDF versions of the article. The authors regret these errors and omissions.

“Dr. Selina Chen-Kiang to be Honored by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
February 17, 2019

We are delighted to announce that the New York City Chapter of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) will be honoring Dr. Selina Chen-Kiang at the 2nd Annual Crimson Ball on Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at The Mandarin Oriental in New York City.”

“Dr. Loda was recruited to Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, where he is currently chair of the Department of Oncologic Pathology. He is also a professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and chief of the Division of Translational and Molecular Oncologic Pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.2

After publication, concerns were raised about several western blot results reported in this article [1].

The β-actin panel in Fig 4 for iPrEC-Tp63 cells appears similar to the β-actin panel in Fig 5D for SCC9-Tp63, with different aspect ratio. The original blots supporting these figures are no longer available, and so the authors are unable to resolve the questions regarding these control blots.
It appears as though the same β-actin panels are presented in Fig 2D and in S1 Fig for SCC9 cells, although the p63 data and experimental conditions are different. The authors provided available blots in support of FASN, p-Akt, and β-actin results shown in S1B Fig (S1 File), which clarify that the incorrect β-actin blot was included for this experiment in the published figure. The original blots underlying Fig 2D and the p63 blot in S1B Fig are no longer available.
p63 and β-actin data were reported multiple times in the article:
○. p63 in Fig 1A, Fig 3B, and Fig 4 for SCC9 cells
○. β-actin panels in Fig 1A, Fig 3B for SCC9 cells
○. p63 and β-actin panels for SCC9-Tp63 and iPREC-Tp63 cell lines in Fig 3B and Fig 4
The authors commented that they believe the western blots in Figs 1A, 3B and 4 were obtained by analyzing proteins from the same experiments, and that the p63 data were presented multiple times in the article to demonstrate that the changes in FASN, p-Akt and pS6 levels were observed in cells in which they had also documented knockdown of p63 expression. The original SCC9 blots for p63 in Figs 1A, 3B and 4 and for β-actin in Figs 1A and 3B are provided in S2 File. The underlying blots are no longer available for the SCC9 β-actin blot shown in Fig 4, for the other SCC9 experiments shown in these figures, or for the iPREC-Tp63 or SCC9-Tp63 experiments.
The same p63 data are presented in Figs 3B and 4 for the SCC9 cell line, although the β-actin data are different. The authors commented that the β-actin blot shown for SCC9 cells in Figs 1A and 3B also applies to the p63 experiment in Fig 4. The original blots are not available to clarify whether the β-actin blot shown in Fig 4 is the matched loading control for Akt, p-Akt, and p-S6 blots shown in this figure.
The authors are unable to confirm whether the β-actin blots shown in the article’s figures are matched loading controls obtained using the same protein samples as in the corresponding experimental panels.
The PLOS ONE Editors post this Expression of Concern to notify readers of the unresolved issues pertaining to the control data reported in this article and the unavailability of primary data to support most of the western blot results.

“Dr. Loda was recruited to Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, where he is currently chair of the Department of Oncologic Pathology. He is also a professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and chief of the Division of Translational and Molecular Oncologic Pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.”

After publication, concerns were raised about several western blot results reported in this article [1].

The β-actin panel in Fig 4 for iPrEC-Tp63 cells appears similar to the β-actin panel in Fig 5D for SCC9-Tp63, with different aspect ratio. The original blots supporting these figures are no longer available, and so the authors are unable to resolve the questions regarding these control blots.
It appears as though the same β-actin panels are presented in Fig 2D and in S1 Fig for SCC9 cells, although the p63 data and experimental conditions are different. The authors provided available blots in support of FASN, p-Akt, and β-actin results shown in S1B Fig (S1 File), which clarify that the incorrect β-actin blot was included for this experiment in the published figure. The original blots underlying Fig 2D and the p63 blot in S1B Fig are no longer available.
p63 and β-actin data were reported multiple times in the article:
○. p63 in Fig 1A, Fig 3B, and Fig 4 for SCC9 cells
○. β-actin panels in Fig 1A, Fig 3B for SCC9 cells
○. p63 and β-actin panels for SCC9-Tp63 and iPREC-Tp63 cell lines in Fig 3B and Fig 4
The authors commented that they believe the western blots in Figs 1A, 3B and 4 were obtained by analyzing proteins from the same experiments, and that the p63 data were presented multiple times in the article to demonstrate that the changes in FASN, p-Akt and pS6 levels were observed in cells in which they had also documented knockdown of p63 expression. The original SCC9 blots for p63 in Figs 1A, 3B and 4 and for β-actin in Figs 1A and 3B are provided in S2 File. The underlying blots are no longer available for the SCC9 β-actin blot shown in Fig 4, for the other SCC9 experiments shown in these figures, or for the iPREC-Tp63 or SCC9-Tp63 experiments.
The same p63 data are presented in Figs 3B and 4 for the SCC9 cell line, although the β-actin data are different. The authors commented that the β-actin blot shown for SCC9 cells in Figs 1A and 3B also applies to the p63 experiment in Fig 4. The original blots are not available to clarify whether the β-actin blot shown in Fig 4 is the matched loading control for Akt, p-Akt, and p-S6 blots shown in this figure.
The authors are unable to confirm whether the β-actin blots shown in the article’s figures are matched loading controls obtained using the same protein samples as in the corresponding experimental panels.
The PLOS ONE Editors post this Expression of Concern to notify readers of the unresolved issues pertaining to the control data reported in this article and the unavailability of primary data to support most of the western blot results.

2019 Expression of concernhttps://mcb.asm.org/content/39/9/e00088-19
Volume 20, no. 5, p. 1723–1732, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.20.5.1723-1732.2000. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) and Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) are issuing this Expression of Concern to alert readers to questions that have been raised about the integrity of the data in this article. MCB has been notified by Harvard Medical School about potential image duplications affecting Fig. 5A. ASM has reviewed the figure and confirmed the suspected duplications. This figure was generated in the laboratory of the first author. This Expression of Concern is issued pending the outcome of an appeal to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and will be updated accordingly.

In the published version of Fig. 6A, the FACS dotplot shown for the stimulation of DG75-COex at 25 μg in the presence of IL-21 was inadvertently duplicated from the 5 μg/IL-21 panel. The indicated frequency of 5% of CD38highCD20low B cells, however, is correct. This correct value of 5% was used in Fig. 6B, so the error in Fig. 6A did not influence the interpretation of the results and conclusions of this work. Fig. 6A has now been corrected with the correct dotplot for stimulation of DG75-COex at 25 μg in the presence of IL-21. The corrected version of Fig. 6 is shown below. The figure legend was correct as published and is shown below for reference. Fig. 6 has also been corrected in the online version of the article, which now differs from the print version originally published.”

From the Departments of ‡Molecular Pathology and §Clinical Investigation, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 and the ¶Department of Human Genetics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021

First Published on
January 22, 2003
doi: 10.1074/jbc.M211849200
April 4, 2003
The Journal of Biological Chemistry
278, 12294-12304.

“Category I duplications: simple, identical duplications.
Category II duplications: duplications involving shift, rotation, or a flip.
Category III duplications: parts within the same panel are duplicated or parts from other panels are duplicated into another panel.
Category I is the most likely to be the result of an honest error, while Category III is really hard to explain by an honest error and the most likely to be done intentionally.”

According to the Elisabeth Bik scale of image duplication the example above would fit Category III.

In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 1A and Figure 2A as published. In Figure 1A, two panels of the 12 panels were mistakenly duplicated; in Figure 2A, one panel of the 12 panels was also duplicated. The numbers given are correct. The corrected Figure 1, Figure 2 and legends appear below.

Post navigation

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!